1' H K B U It H T 1 IS G 



( ) F 



I'lERRE MARGRVS 



LA SALLE BUBBLE, 



By JOHN &ILMARY ^HEA 



Riprintiii ti'<'iii tli>' A f';c' ^ork J-'r,i//iti//\< Joii> 



N E W YORK: 
T. 1'.. SIDEBOTHA^r. PRINTER, 28 BEEKMAN STRiLET. 



1S79. 



THE BUHSTIlSra 



OF 



PIERRE MARGRYS 



LA SALLE BUBBLE. 



By JOHN GILMARY SHEA. 




NEW YORK: 
T. B. SIDEBOTHAM, PRINTER, 28 BEEKMAN STREET. 

1879. 



^^ 



r352 



THE BURSTING OF PIERRE MARGRY'S 
LA SALLE BUBBLE. 



For nearly twenty years Mr. Pierre Margry has 
been holdiag over the heads of American scholars, 
with a great show of mystery, documentary evidence 
which was to prove to a certainty that his fellow, 
Norman Robert Cavelier, commonly known as La 
Salle, was the first to disoover the Mississippi, and 
that he had been deprived of his just glory in favor 
of Joliet, son of a blacksmith, A.merican born at 
that, and Marquette, a Jesuit. His first claim was 
t>ha La Salle descended the Ohio and Mississippi 
to its mouth in 1670. This proving untenable he 
claims that subsequent to that date he descended 
the Illinois and Mississippi. 

Articles by him have appeared in French jour- 
nals, a fellow Norman, Gravier, adopted his views, 
but in this country there was a lack of faith. Ban- 
croft had Margry 's published articles and some of 
the doctiments in which he relied, but did not ac- 
cept his positions. Mr. Faillou, writing from docu- 
ments strongly prepossessed against the Jesuits, 
could not embrace his views. Mr, Parkman, to 
whom he furnished many documents, and who 
shows constantly Margry's influence, and who had 
apparently all that Margry relied upon, dared not 
compromise his reputation by adopting his theories. 
Harrisse, a bibliographer, dispassionately study- 
ing the question, found Margry's arguments most 
unsubstantial. 



Tet, with the fact that not a single American stu- 
dent of history has ranged himself beside him, Mr. 
Margry, in a recent letter to Mr. Lyman C. Draper, 
says: "These articles of mine have greatly trou- 
bled certain persons, as appears by the meeting at 
Missilimakinak, regarding the discovery, more or 
less reliable, of the the remains of Father Mar- 
quette. What I said concerning Cavelier de la 
Salle's priority in discovering the Ohio and Missis- 
sippi, has been the occasion of great and even acri- 
monious controversit s. I care nothing f < .r attacks 
from which search after truth is excluded, and 
which are little else than passion." This is very 
hilly. American historical students have simply 
given the verdict, "Not proven," as to Mr. Mar- 
gry's theory. 

But he has at last shown his hand and enabled 
us to see all that he has to bring forward on the 
subject. His exceptional advantages in being able 
to investigate year after year the French archives, 
making copies of many documents for the Cana- 
dian Government, Mr. Parkman and other scholars 
enabled him to collect a mass of material, that was 
supposed to be of great value. By som«- lobby in- 
fluence at Washington, an appropriation, I believe 
of ten thousand dollars, was made to enable him to 
print them. Three volumes have appeared, and it 
must be avowed thpt they are sadly disappointing. 
They are padded out and extended ui^justifiably, 
and the new matter proves to be comparatively 
little. The documents are divided into classes, 
and arranged under chapters, with jui abundance 
of bastard titles and extended headings like those 
of a sensational newspaper. The source of the 
document is not given, except in a confused way at 
tlie end, nor information furnished whether from 



the copy is made au original or a copy, whetber 
late or early. The first documeut of all, the "Mem- 
oi^e of the Recollects," is uo novelty here. It was 
printed iu t'le Quebec Abeille, May 30, 1859, et 
seq., with notes by the late accurate Abbd Ferlaud. 
The summary of discoveries, pp. 35 to 41, will be 
found translated in the "New York Colonial Docu- 
mmts," iii., p. 507; pp. 43 55 are extracts from 
the "Jesuit Relations," wkich have been reprint- 
ed entire in Canada. -The notict^ on Allouez, pp. 
57 72, I used more than twenty five years ago, and 
he introduces it, as he rather amusingly tells us, 
only to give him a pretext for inserting au anti- 
Jesuit polemical tract. The documents, pages 76, 
77, 82-9, 91-4, 99-100, 167, 238, 245, 249, 250, 255, 
257, 273, 281, 286, will be found in "New York 
Colonial Documents," ix., pp. 29, 41, 64, 67, 65. 
66, 69, 72, 73, 75, 95, 93, 115, 120, 92, 121, 117, 123, 
125, and it would be easy to extend the reference. 
The letters pp. 238, 9, 242 are in the "Mi-^i-iou du 
Canada," i., p. 343, etc. If the "Relation ot Jo- 
liet's Discovery " is virtually a copy of that in bis 
hand-writing preserved in the Seminary of St. Sul- 
pice, Paris (Faillon, Histoire 3, p. 315 ; Harrisse, 
p. 322-3), the suppression of Joliet's own letter on 
the same sheet needs explanation. It does not 
look honest ; and the note of the editor on page 
301, makes us think he has recently read " Tar- 
tuife." The act of taking possession, page 96, has 
-alwayis been published in "Taliban's Perrot," 
page 292. And in many cases he gives merely an 
extract where the "New York Documents" give 
tie entire paper, enabling the ttudtnt to see the 
connection and understand the tone of the whole. 

The editing is very carelessly done. A letter 
given on page 239, as of Father Gravier, is evi- 



6 . 

dently of Father Julian Gamier, who was then in 
the Seneca country, while Gravier never was. On 
page 255 the extract from Frontenac's letter regai^l- 
iug J jliet, has the date suppressed in the text and 
given only in the summary, which in view of the 
fact that the animus of the whole collection is to 
assail Joliet, does not look accidental. 

There are, undoubtedly, papers here made ac- 
cessible to historical students for the first time, 
but their number and value are not what one would 
expect from a collector possessing for years the re- 
markable advantages of Mr. Margry. The most 
important are really those which give the true 
story of La Salle's last attempt, expose his pirati- 
cal object and relieve Beaujeu from the odium so 
long, so di^iagenuou6ly and so persistently heaped 
upon him. 

In his letter to Mr. Draper, as translated by Mr. 
James D. Butler, Mr. Murgry says: "I still very 
firmly believe that La Salle discovered the Missis- 
sippi by way of the Lakes, by Chicago and by the 
Illinois River, as far south as the 36th parallel 
and all this before 1673 (the date of Marquette's 
iliscovery). This opinion of mine I base first on 
the narrative made by La Salle to the Abb^ Renau- 
dot." This narrative describes an expedition in 
which La Salle was engaged southwest of Lake 
Ontario, for a distance of four hundred leagues, 
and down a river that must have been the Ohio. 
This was in 1669. 

The narrative proceeds : "Some time thereafter he 
made a second expedition on the same river which 
he quitted below Lake Erie, made a portage of six 
or seven leagues to embark on that lake, traversed 
it toward the north, ascended the river out oi 
which it tlow^, passed the Lake of Dirty Water 



(St. Claire ?), entered the Freshwater Sea (Mer 
Douce), doubled the point of land that cuts the 
sea in two (Lakes Huron and Michigan), and de- 
scending from north to south, leaving on the 
West the Bay of the Puans (Green Baj), discover- 
ed a bay infiaitely larger — at the bottom of which, 
towards the west, he found a very beautiful harbor 
(Chicago. Is there any earlier mention or de- 
scription of that site?) and at the bottom of this 
river which runs from the east to the west, he 
followed this river and having arrived at about the 
280th (sic.) degree of longitude and the 39th of 
latitude, he came to another river, which uniting 
with the first, flowed from the northwest to the 
southeast. This he followed as far as the 36th de- 
gree of latitude, where he f©und it advisable to 
stop, contenting himself with the almost certain 
hope of some day passing by way of the river even 
to the Gulf of Mexico. Having but a handful of 
followers, he dared not risk a further expedition in 
the course of which he was likely to meet with ob- 
stacles too great for his strength. (See the work 
above mentioned. Vol. i. , p. 378. ) 

'* I base my opinion, secondly, uu a letter of La 
Salle's niece — the Mississippi and the river Col- 
bert being both one. This letter, dated 1756, says 
the writer, possessed maps which, in 1676, were 
possessed by La Salle, and which proved that he 
had already made two voyages of discovery. 
Among the places set down on these maps, the 
river Colbert, the place where La Salle had landed 
near the Mississippi, and the spot where he plant- 
ed a cross and took possession of the country in 
the name of the Bang are mentioned. (Vol i., p. 
379.) 

"I base my opinion, thirdly, on a letter of Count 



8 

Frontenac. In this letter, which was written in 
1677, to the French Premier, Colbert, Frontenac 
says that "the Jesuits having learned that M. de 
la Salle thought of asking (from the French 
crown) a grant of the Illinois Lake (Lake Michi- 
gan), had resolved to seek this grant themselves 
for Messrs. Joliet and Lebert, men wholly in their 
interest, and the first of whom they have so highly 
extolled beforehand, although he did not voyage 
until after the Sieur de la Salle, who himself will 
testify to you that the relation of the Sieur Joliet 
is in many things false." (Vol. i., p. 324.) 

"In fine, I found my opinion on the total antag- 
<)ui«m between the Jesuits and the merchants, as 
well as those who represented interest or only a 
legitimate ambition. In opposition to the Jesuits, 
the Cavelier de la Salle always associated with the 
Sulpicians or Recollects, whom Colbert had raised 
up against the Jesuits, in order to lessen the influ- 
ence of those who would fain undermine him." ' 

Here, then, is his case : To prove La Salle's 
discovery of the Mississippi prior to 1673, he relies 
on, first, a document of no date ; second, a letter 
of 1756; third, a letter of Frontenac, in 1677; 
fourth, the antagonism between the Jesuits and the 
merchants. He relies on documents posterior to 
the date of Joliet and Marquette's voyage, and writ- 
ten when the results of that voyage were known, 
and on the fact that the Jesuits, as well as the 
Bishop and secular clergy, including the Sulpi- 
tiaus, were at issue with the merchants, condemn- 
ing the sale of liquor to the Indians as sinful. This 
last argument I must dismiss, for I admit that my 
mind fails to comprehend how the existence of the 
licjuor question in Canada, at that time, can prove 
that La Salle, who favored liquor, discovered 



9 

water, whether in the MissiBsippi, Lake Nyanza or 
the open Polar Sea, or by what rule of mathema- 
tics the exact date of his discovery can be deduced 
from the fact of there being a Liquor War. 

To come to the documents. The first one, and 
that mainly relied upon by Mr. Margry, is one that 
he tells us he found in May, 1845, in a collection 
of papers all hostile to the Jesuits. Mr. Margry 
heads it, " Recit d'un Ami de I'Abbd de Galin^e," 
and adds in a note, "And of the Abb^ Arnauld. 
The name of this illustrious Jansenist, which will 
be found in the text, should naturally put us on 
our guard against the author of thi? document, the 
original of which is found in a collection of papers 
all hostile to the Jesuits, Several passages of this 
manuscript lead me to think that it is from the 
learned Abb^ Renaudot, to whom Boileau address- 
ed his 'Epistle on the Love of God.' " In his let- 
ter already quoted, it is ascribed positively to the 
Abbd Renaudot. Mr. Parkman, who had this 
document and analyzes it in his " Discovery ( f the 
Great Wpst," says, page 101: "I am strongly 
inclined to think that this noblemaia himself 
(Louis Armand de Bourbon, second Prince de 
Conti), is author of the Memoir." Here at once is 
a difference of opinion, and it ought to be easy to 
decide in 34 years whether the document is in the 
handwriting of the Prince de Conti or of the Abb^ 
Renaudot. If it is a copy made by nobody knows 
who or when, of a document written by nobody 
knows who or when, its value certainly cannot be 
very great as evidence of acts of La Salle between 
1669 and 1673, for this is the widest interval in 
which this pretended discovery of the Mississippi 
could have taken place. 

Mr, Parkman says: "In one respect the paper 



10 

is of uuquestioDable historical value ; for it gives 
us a vivid aud net an exaggerated picture ot the 
bitter strife of parties which then raged in Canada, 
and which was destined to tax to the utmost th-:- 
vast energy and fortitude of La Salle. At ti aies 
the Memoir is fully sustained by contemporary evi- 
dence; but often, again, it rests on its own unsup- 
ported authority," page 102. He might have add 
ed, " And is in direct contradiction to established 
facts." Elsewhere he says: "The writer himself 
had never been in America and was ignor ut of its 
geography, hence blunders on his part might rea- 
sonably be expected. His statements, however, 
are in some measure intelligible," page 20. Mr. 
Parkmau, using it as he does, and misled into 
treating a map made by Joliet himself, as one 
made prior to Joliet's voyage (See Harrisse, notes 
page 197), candidly says: "That he (La Salle) 
discovered thr- Ohio may then be regarded as es- 
tablished. That he descended it to tlie Mississippi 
he does not pretend ; nor is there reason to believe 
that he did so," page 23). "La Salle discovered 
th*" Ohio and in all probability the Illinois also ; 
but that he discovered the Mississipiji, has nut 
been proved, nor in the light of the evidence we 
have, is it likely," page 25. 

The estimate of Mr. Parkman, will be found, we 
thiuk, by his own actual treatment of the docu- 
ment to be far too high. He really treats it as 
worthless. 

In 1669, the French knew of a river called by the 
Iroquois, Ohio or Beautiful River, rit-iug south of 
Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and ruuuiug west- 
ward. "The hope of be^iver, but especially that 
of finding thereby a i^assage to the Gulf of Cali- 
foruia (Mer Vermeille), where Mr. de la Salle be 



11 

lieved that the river Ohio emptied, made him un- 
dertake this voyage, so as not to leave to another 
the honor of finding the way to the Pacific, aud 
thereby to C/hina," says the Abbt5 Galin^e. He 
obtained letters patent from de Courcelles in 1669, 
and set out -with two Sulpitians, the Bev. Dollier 
de CasKon, priest, and de Galin^e, deacon. They 
left Montreal in seven canoes, bearing 21 men, 
July 6, 1669. They reached Sonnontouau, a Seneca 
town, but failed to obtain a guide to the Ohio. 
The Jesuit Missionary, Fremin, had gone to Onon- 
daga, aud they had no one able to speak Seneca. 
They were told, however, that to the Ohio was a 
distance of six days' march of twelve leagues a day, 
while from Lake Erie they could reach it in three 
days. 

Failiug to obtain a guide they left the Seneca 
towu, crossed the Niagara below the Falls, and on 
the 24:th of September, reached Tinaoutaoua, an 
Iroquois town on the northern shore of Lake On- 
tario. Here they found Joliet aoming from Lake 
Superior. He told them of the Pottawatamies at 
Green Bay, aud their proximity to the Mississippi. 
Joliet gave them a written description of the route 
from the Ottawas, and apparently of a shorter one, 
which an Iroquus had explained to him, and Gali- 
n^e embodied this information in a map. Joliet 
also told the Missionaries where he had left a 
canoe on Lake Erie. With this important aid 
from Joliet, Dollier de Cat-son and his party start- 
ed for the West on the 30th, to take the route indi- 
cated by that explorer ; La Salle, on the pretext of 
ill-health remained, showing an inclination to re- 
turn to Montreal. ("Belation del' Abbt5 de la 
Galin^e." Margry 1, pp.' 112-147.) 

This gives an authentic and circumstantial ae- 



12 

coHnt of La Salle's first attempt to reach tht* 
Ohio; autl by the testimony of Galinde, we fiud 
Joliet and La Salle face to face in this Indian vil- 
lage, Joliet already cognizant of the West, and ex- 
plaining to La Salle and his companions his idea of 
the best mode of reaching the Mississippi, and of- 
fering them a description which he had drawn up 
of his route. In the question of the priority be 
tween La Salle and Joliet, all this is highly im- 
portant. 

Now, let us see how this matter is treated in 
Margry's first authority. 

The Second Part of the Anonymous Memoir, 
headed "' Histoire de M. de la Salle," begins thus : 

" He left France at 21 or 22 years of age, suffi- 
ciently conversant with the last Relations of the 
New World, and with the design of attempting some 
new discoveries there. After having been some 
time in Canada, having acquired some knowledge 
of the languages, and traveled nortliward where he 
found nothing that induced him to remain, he re- 
sijlved to tviru southward, and having advanced for 
this purpose t) an Indian town, where there was a 
Jesuit whose name has escaped me (I do not know 
whether it was not Father Albantl) and where he 
hoped to find guides, this Jesuit had notice of his 
coming and his design, went off to a distance, and 
although the Indians of that town, as almost all 
those of that continent, have of themselves no re- 
pugnance to serve as guides, he could never fiud a 
single one who would render him that service. He 
accordingly had to reojain there some time, during 
which having persuaded those who aei^<impauied 
him to try some fortune, lioping to find some ludi 
ans who would guide him, he went further, found 
what he sought and Mr. Galiuee, who was with 



13 

him and who had gone to Canada only to catechise 
the Indians, thinking that he could render more 
service in the places where there were Jesuits, al- 
though he was moreover connected with the Sulpi- 
tiaus, resolved to go to the Ottawas, which is a nor- 
thern nation, above the Fresh Water Sea, who carry 
on a great trale in beaver. This ecclesiastic had 
asked a Mission from the Bishop of Canada and 
that Bishop had sent him to the Jesuits to receive 
a Mission from them. Mr. Galin<^e, surprised at 
this dismissal, told him that he could not take his 
mission from the Jesuits, if merely because tie was 
a licentiate of the Sorbonne, where he would never 
be pardoned for so extraordinary a step, but he 
could obtain nothing from the Bishop. He never- 
theless set out, unable to persuade himself that 
these Fathers would at least prevent his baptizing, 
as he was a deacon. Accordingly with this hope he 
left Mr, de la Salle, who thought very differently 
from him, and who assured him that he would not 
be there long ; and in fact the Jesuits thanked him 
and promptly bowed him out. Meanwhile Mr. de 
la Salle continued his way on a river which goes 
from east to west and passes to Onoutagu^ (Onon- 
daga), then to six or seven leagues below Lake 
Erie, and having reached the 280th or 83d degree 
of longitude and as far as the ilst degree of lati- 
tude, found a cataract which falls westward in a 
lov marshy country, all covered with old stumps 
some of which are still standing. He was forced to 
land, and following a ridge which might lead him 
far, he found some Indians who told him that very 
far from there, this same river which lost itself in 
this low and vast country, united again in a single 
bed. He accordingly continued his way, but as 
the hardship was great, 23 or 24 men whom he had 



14 

conducted up to that point, all left him iu oue 
uight, regained the river aud escaped, some to New 
Netherland, the others to New Englmd, He then 
beheld himself alone four hundred leagues from his 
home, to which nevertheless he succeeded in return- 
ing ascending the river, and living by hunting, on 
herbs and what the Indians gave him whom he met 
on the way. 

Some time after that he made a second attempt 
ou the same river, which he left below Lake Erie, 
making a portage of six or seven leagues to embark 
on that lake, which he crossed to the north, ascend- 
ed the river which forms this lake, passed Salt Wa- 
ter Lake, entered the Fresh Water Sea, doubled the 
point of land which divides this lake iu two, and 
descending it from north to south, leaving on the 
west the bay of the Puants, discovered a bay infin- 
itely larger, at the head of which on the west he 
found a very fine harbor, and at the head of this 
harbor a river that runs from east to west. He fol- 
lowed this river and having reaf^hed about the 280th 
degree of longitude and 39th degree of latitude, 
found another river which, joining the former, 
flowed from northwest to southeast. He followed 
this river to the 36th degree of latitude where he 
found it advisable to stop, contenting himself \vith 
the almost certain hope of being one day able to 
pass, by following the course of this river, to the 
Gulf of Mexico, and not daring with the small party 
he had, to hazard an enterprise in the course of 
which he might find some obstacle insuperable to 
the means which he had." 

This vague series of statements without a single 
date, or the name of a tribe, or a description of a 
landmark is quoted to us as historical authority ! 
The first part is covered by Galiniie's careful uar- 



15 

rative where every date is given, and the course 
marked so that it can be traced, and that narrative 
shows the falsity of this paper. La Salle and Dol- 
lier de Cassor , each impelled by the information 
given by some Seneca ambassadors resolved to reach 
the Mississippi, the former to explore it to its mouth 
on the Pacific, believing the Ohio the main river 
ruuaing constantly westward ; (see Dollier de 
Casson, Voyage de M. de Courcelles, Margry 1, p. 
181 ; N. Y. Col. Doc, ix. p. 80). Dollier de Casson, 
a Siilpitiau priest to found Missions on its banks. 
The Histoire de M. de la Salle suppresses Dollier 
de Casson, and invents a story about Galioee's 
being refused a Mission by the Bishop, and being 
sent to the Jesuits. The story is palpably false, as 
his own narrative shows. He went merely as assis- 
tant to Dollier de Casson, who received from Bishop 
Laval, faculties such as he had given the year before 
to Feaelon. Mr. Faillou describes them and refers 
to the Greffe de Villemarie, Archives Judiciares, 
where they are, dated May 15th, 1669. Those of 
Fdnelon to which he refers, are printed in Dollier 
de Casson 's History of Montreal, issued by the 
Historical Society of that city, and were recently 
translated by me for " The First Pages of Cayuga 
History." Each party fitted out its own canoes, 
and neither seems to have provided an interpreter 
knowing any Iroquois dialect, so that on reaching 
the Seneca country they were helpless. Then they 
crossed the mouth of the Niagara, and proceeded 
to an Iroquois village on the Northern shore of 
Lake Ontario. If in doing this La Salle can be 
said "to have gone further and found what he 
sought," the Histoire ii true, if not it is false ; its 
statement of Galinee's Mission is false ; the state- 
ment that he left La Salle when they parted at Te- 



16 

naoutaoua, because the Bishop would not give him 
faculties is false ; that he went to the Jesuits who 
declined his services^ ii- false, by Galin^e's own 
showing. 

The attempt to reach the Mississippi by the way 
of the Seneca country having failed, Dollier de 
Casson and Galinee^ acted on the advice of Joliet, 
who gave them mformation t-ufficient to draw a map, 
and they went to Sault Ste. Marie and the isles off 
Green Bay, evidently to folio v the course by the 
Wisconsin which Joliet himself subsequently took. 
Galinde's narrative shows that Joliet was conversant 
with the subject, had stiadied the country, made 
no secret of the route he deemed best, and enseur- 
aged others to try it. And at this time we have no 
evidence of any knowledge of the Mississippi on 
the part of La Salle except of the most vague char- 
acter. 

The Bistoire proceeds : " Meanwhile Mr. de la 
Salle continued his way on a river which goes from 
east to west, and passes to Onondaga, then to six 
or seven leagues below Lake Erie." The Sulpi- 
tians left him on the northern shore of Lake On- 
tario ; this account transports him suddenly to a 
river rising east of Onondaga, passing by that and 
^an4 then running westward within twenty miles of 
Lake Erie. In the Memoire attributed to La Salle 
himself, there is no such absurdity. He there 
(Margry 1, p. 330,) merely claims that he discovered 
the Ohio, and continues : " He followed it to a 
place where it falls from very high into vast marshes, 
at 37 degrets North, after having been swollen by an- 
other wide river that comes from the north." While 
the Histoire confusing everything says: "Having 
arrived at 280 degrees or 83 degrees of longitude, 
and to 41 degrees of longitude he found a eataract 



17 



whijh falls towards the west in a low marshy 
counfciy all covered with old stumps," etc. 

That La Salle really reached the Ohio is gener- 
ally admitted ; but neither of these accounts en- 
ables us to fix the point to which he followed it. 
There is certainly no high fall. The rapids at 
Louisville cannot be so called, and the wide river 
from the north is wanting as well as the marshes 
through which an Indian canoe could not pass. To 
assume that he reached the Mississippi, and make 
it the ^vide river from the north flowing into the 
Ohio, makes the allusion to the high falls absurd, 
as there are certainly none on the Mississippi below 
the mouth of the Ohio. The Histoire so far from 
removing doubts, thicken them. 

Its sequel, that he kept ou his way by a ridge, 
cill his 23 or 24 men deserted him, and made their 
way to New Netherland (New York), or New Eng- 
land, which must mean Virginia, does not look 
probable. Galin^e says that La halle proposed 
takiug five canoes and fourteen men, andDollier de 
Cassou, three canoes and seven men, but that they 
really started with seven canoes, each with three 
men. After they parted company La Salle could 
not have had twenty- three or twenty-four men as- 
his share of the twenty-one. While we admit La 
Salle's discovery of a river, it cannot be on this con- 
fused and distorted Memoir. We have in favor of 
it La Salle's, not very intelligible account, for 
neither the Ohio nor the Mississippi meets the 
case, a subsequent reference to the Ohio as a river 
he discovered, the recognition of La Salle's claim ou 
Joliet's maps, and the passage in Talon's letter to 
the King, November 2, 1671, which we may justly 
refer to this exploration. The Histoire adds noth- 
ing to these. 



18 

The next statement in the Histoire is the one on 
which Mr. Margry relies to prove that La Salle 
discoYtred the Mississippi before Marquette and 
Joliet's voyage in 1673. Its statement is that some 
time after his discovery of the Ohio, that is an in- 
definite time after an unsettled date, La Salle made 
a second attempt on the same river, and leaving it, 
reached Lake Erie by a portage of six or seven 
leagues, taking the route which Galinee says the 
Senecas recommended, that of the Muskingam, and 
Cuyahoga, or Scioto and Sandusky, or thatreferred 
to later by La Salle, the Maumee and Wabash. 
That he then crossed Lake Eiie, ascended the St. 
Clair, entered Lake Michigan, and at the head of 
the lake found a fine harbor, which seems to cor- 
respond to Chicago, and to give the narrative the 
widest interpretation, from this place reached a river 
running west, the lUiuois, which he followed to the 
Mississippi, and descended that river to latitude 39 
degrees North, longitude 280 degrees West, where an- 
other river, the Missouri, came from the northwest, 
and passing its mouth he kept on to 36 degrees 
North. 

As this pretended discovery is mentioned pn no l 
document of the time, it rests solely on this Recit 
and Histoire ; and the credibility of this paper 
must be tested. Its very form is against it ; it is 
without name or date, but evidently more recent 
than 1678, when Joliet's voyage was known. As to 
La Salle's voyage it gives no dates or details as to 
tlie number of his men, the name of a single one 
who accompanied him, persons met at any point of 
the route, the ime occupied on the voyage. There 
is nothing that could not have been derived from 
•loliet's account of the Mississippi. In itself the 
Recit and Histoire is utterly worthless as histori- 



19 

cal evidence. It abounds in statements easily re- 
futed, and so preposterous that Mr. Parkmau and 
Margry have hitherto consigned them to oblivion, 
Mr. Parkman showing hi?, contempt of them, by 
never alluding to them in his " Jesuits of North 
America" or "Discovery of the Great West." Thus it 
charges that the Jesuits at Mackinac and Sault 
Ste, Marie had soldiers whom they drilled in the 
use of weapoQS ; and though we have Galin^e's, La 
Salle's, Hennepin's, and even La Hon tan's accounts 
of visits to Mackinac, not one, though all unfriend- 
ly to the Jesuits, even hints at such a state of things, 
nor does Froutenac ever charge this in the de- 
spatches where he gathers all he can against them. 

More vile than this is the charge that Brebeuf, 
Daniel and the other Jesuits killed on the Huron 
Mission died fighting ; and that Father Garnier 
shot down three men before he fell. It would be 
necessary simply to read this precious document of 
Margry's, and Garnier's letters to decide which 
was the honest man. The charge that Brother le 
Boeme killed two Sioux at Sault Ste. Marie, that 
Bishop Laval kept an open shop in his house, are 
a sample of the style of the whole paper. 

It professes to be made from conversations with 
La Salle, notes being taken after each interview, 
yet it is filled with professed inability to recollect 
names, and shows that the writer had access to dis- 
patches of Frontenac from which some of the mat- 
ter is drawn, as, for instance, Hennepin's visit to 
Father Bruyas, whose name in his usual style this 
author professes to forget. As a sample of his 
honesty bake this ; " The Jesuits had sent to France, 
more than a year ago, one of their Donu(^ Brothers, 
named Joliet, with another map made from hearsay, 
and this Donne Brother took to himself the honor 



20 



of this discovery. This imposture did not sncceed 
to the honor of this Donne Brother, who accwrding 
to all appearances did not meet the questions usually- 
made on such occasions, and Mr. Galin^e gave one 
of my friends to understand that he knew no one 
but Mr. de la Salle capable of having made that 
discovery." 

Are we to take this as history ? To make Joliet 
a Donne, one of those humble workingmeu who 
from zeal gave their services at the Missions ; to 
say that Joliet who, asGalineetellsus, gave La Salle 
and Dollier de Casson a description of the route to 
the West, and told them the most practicable route 
to the Mississippi, made his map of the river from 
hearsay ; to eall his claim an imposture when Fron- 
tenac announces his mission by authority, and when 
the Government subsequently rewarded him for it, is 
Worse than a crime ; it is a blunder. Marquette and 
Joliet with only live men faced dangers from which 
Dollier de Casson and Galinee with better equip- 
ment recoiled ; they carried out the exploration with 
fewer men than La Salle had in his ineffectual at- 
tempt to reach the Ohio ; far fewer than the force 
with which he finally reached the exaggerated rapids 
at Louisville, the only falls his advocates can find. 

This paper Mr. Margry did wisely to keep back 
for thirty years, and the United States Government 
would have done wisely to keep it thirty years be- 
fore printing it as history. We may almost expect 
to see Barou Munchausen issue from the Govern- 
ment printing office. 

To seek to establish any historicnl fact ou the 
mere authority of this miserable anonymous libel is 
riiliculous. But it may be said that Mr. Margry 
lias a document to support it. Let us examine it. 
This other document, relied upon by Mr. Margry, 



21 

is a letter of Magdalen Cavelier, Dame Leforestier, 
a niece of La Salle's, written more than eighty 
years after the period of the discovery of the Mis- 
sissippi. It shows her to be very ignorant. Al- 
most every word is misspelt. It runs thus : 

"This 21 January 1756. 

"Aesoon, sir, your letter received, I sought a 
safe way to send you the papers of Mr, de la S lUe, 
There are maps which I have joined to these pa- 
pers, which ought to serve to prove that m 1675 Mr. 
de la Salle had already made two voyages in these 
discoveries, siuce there is a map which I send you, 
by which mention is made of the place where Mr. 
de la Salle landed near the river Misipi, another 
place that he calls River Cobrer, in another he takes 
possession of this country in the name of the king 
and plants a cross, another place that he calls Fron- 
tenac, the river Saint Lorans at another place. You 
will see in these pieces the review made in the 
fort, which he built of stone, which was of wood. 
You will find the receipt of^Mr. Duchesneau for in- 
tendant of 9000 liv. which Mr. de la Salle had paid 
him to indemnify those who had ma ;le this fort of 
wood. " 

Now what is there in this? Simply that he had 
made two voyages of exploration by 1675, fixing, as 
it were, 1675 as the date of his visit to the Missis- 
sippi, and yet the whole tenor makes it clear that 
the map was made subsequent to his voyage to the 
mouth, and his planting a cross there, taking pos- 
session in the king's name. Certainly there is 
nothing here to prove that he visited the Mississip- 
pi before Joliet. The use of the name Colbert, 
which was given by Joliet, is evidence that the map 
was later than his discoveries. But the letter is too 
vague to amount to anything. The lady was a par- 



22 

ty to a suit many years before, and the papers in 
her hands must have all been canvassed then. No 
trace of such a claim appears at that time. 

It may be said that the remark of Talon, iu 1671, 
refers really to La Salle's expedition, in which he 
discovered the Mississippi, and that the Ohio dis- 
covery took place before and immediately after 
parting with DoUier de Casaon. This theory can- 
not stand for a moment. Talon, writing by the ves- 
sels that sailed in November, 1671, announces that 
La Salle had not yet returned from his explorations. 
We are then to believe that La Salle returned from 
the West and announced to Talon in December, 1671, 
or early in 1672, that he had reached the great river 
of the West, and descended it to 36 degrees North ; 
and that Talon either disbelieved the whole story 
and treated it as a fiction, or else forgot it as soon 
as he heard it. Certainly, by the time the sum- 
mer of 1672 came. Talon was not intiueuced by La 
Salle's report, if there was any report, or he would 
not have despatched Joliet to the West to try and 
discover the very river that La Salle had just ex- 
plored. As Talon has a reputation of being some- 
thing bt tier than an idiot, we must hold that when 
he sent Joliet to discover and explore the Missis- 
sippi, he had no intelligence of its discovery and 
exploration by any one else. 

Had he known of La Salle's discovery and treat- 
ed it as an imposture, La Salle, on going to France, 
in 1674, would undoubtedly havd protested against 
the wrong done him, and in working against Johet's 
Illinois project, in 1677, would have used his claim 
of prior discovery. Even at a later date, when he 
made the voyage down, which is so fully chroni- 
cled, he merely criticized Joliet's account, admit- 
ting his voyage, without pretending to have anti- 
cipated him. 



23 

Indeed, he admits Joliet's priority: "It is true 
that the Sieur Joliet, to anticipate him, made a 
voyage, iu 1673, to the River Colbert," says La 
Salle, himself. (Margry, 2, p. 285.) 

Moreover, we have La Salle's own evidence, in 
regard to this Chicago route. In his letter of Sep- 
tember 29, 1680 (Margry, 2, p. 79), he claims the 
discovery of the Ohio, and extols its superiority 
over the Wisconsin, "the route by which Joliet 
passed." On p. 95, he decries the Chicago route, 
as if it had been extolled by others ; and on p. 167, 
explicitly eays that it was recommended by Joliet, 
and on p. 137, he states that the name Divine was 
given to the river by Joliet. 

Now, is it possible that he could have taken this 
route to the Mississippi prior to the voyage of Mar- 
quette and Joliet, and consequently before Joliet 
ever saw this Chicago river, and yet never allude to 
the fact, but on two occasions associate Joliet with 
it as discoverer, namer and recommender. Would 
he not have asserted his own claim, and not fallen 
back, as he habitually does, on his discovery of 
the Ohio? 

It seems strange that La Salle, without having 
explored the Mississippi, could have gone to France 
and obtained a grant when Joliet, the real discover- 
er, met a refusal. But it is not stranger than to 
see oiu' Government, without any examination, give 
money to Mr. Margry to print papers already ac- 
cessible, or not worth printing, when papers of the 
highest interest to our country lie unprinted here. 
However, it is almost impossible to fix a time when 
La Salle could have gone to the Mississippi before 
his voyage to France, in the autumn fleet of 1674. 

That he had not made the discovery up to No- 
vember 2, 1671, seems certain from Talon's dis- 



// 



24 



patch. That, after his return from Ohio, he start- 
ed westward, and forestalled Marquette and Joliet, 
or went while they were actually on the river, it is 
impossible to believe. There would have been some 
notice somewhere of the rival attempts. In the 
summer of 1673, he was Front-eaac's messenger to 
the Iroquois cantons; at Easter, in 1674, he was 
creating a disturbance in the church at Montreal ; 
in November he went to France. 

La Salle's prior discovery of the Mississippi is 
a bubble, which Mr. Margry, by giving in articles 
merely fragments of documents, has ingeniously 
blown to an immense size. It staggered many 
who thought that there must be something in it. 
Clear heads like Harrisse, Tailhau, Faillou, ex- 
amined his arguments carefully, so far as they 
had the documents, and decided that he failed to 
prove his case. Mr. Parkman, more guardedly, 
reaches the same result. Now that we have all 
that he relies on, the bubble bursts and vanishes 
into thin air ; it is merely a monstrous hoax that 
he haa been playing. 



""*->V-X>v2r9-^ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



014 542 119 6 %l 



